Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010249702024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/650/2024 MIR SUMESHUDDIN AHMED S/O LATE CHANDU SHEIKH, R/O NOTBOMA, P.O. AND P.S. HATIGAON, DISTRICT KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM VERSUS BABUL BAISHYA, ACS THE CIRCLE OFFICER, DISPUR REVENUE CIRCLE, BASISTHA, GUWAHATI- 28, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ALI, MR. MUSTAFA HUSSAIN,MR H A AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S R BORUAH, MR. S R BORUAH,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 20.04.2026 Heard Shri R. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri S.R. Baruah, learned counsel for the sole respondent. The present petition has been filed alleging wilful and deliberate disobedience of an order dated 26.07.2024 passed in WP(C)/5700/2023, the Page No.# 2/3 operative part of which reads as follows: “... In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition stands disposed of directing the respondent no. 3 to determine the demarcation case No. 80/2022 as aforesaid within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order to be furnished by the petitioner. It is needless to say that such decision be made on its own merit without being influenced by any of the observations made in this case, inasmuch as if any third party right is involved in respect of the said land, such party may also be heard.” The present petition alleging wilful disobedience was filed thereafter that the directions were not complied with. The sole respondent represented by Shri Baruah, the learned counsel has however filed an affidavit stating that the demarcation was carried out on 02.05.2023 itself in demarcation case No.80/2022 and when the writ petition was disposed of on 26.07.2024, the said aspect could not be brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Court as instructions were not available at that time. This Court vide order dated 09.03.2026 had accordingly directed listing of this matter along with the records of WP(C)/5700/2023. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though on 02.05.2023, some officers had visited the site, the demarcation exercise was not carried out. This aspect has however been stoutly disputed by Shri Baruah, the learned counsel who has submitted that the demarcation exercise was duly carried out and in this regard, he has drawn the attention of this Court to the signed report dated 02.05.2023. The report which has been enclosed as Annexure-C has been perused which is preceded by notices to the respective parties which have also been Page No.# 3/3 enclosed. This Court is of the prima facie opinion that in view of the aforesaid report, a case for wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order cannot be readily inferred. This Court however observed that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the report which involve disputed question of fact, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the appropriate Civil Court for redressal of his grievance, if any. The contempt petition accordingly stands closed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant